Krashen and "Krashenite"

[Kraut]

In this video Lampariello recommends a Japanese scholar that does a detailed analysis of the input hypothesis in the context of SLA.
-----------
How to Reach a Very High Level in a Foreign Language @Days of French 'n' Swedish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_T0yfRvx-U
----------
Output in SLA (Second Language Acquisition
Output 0:20 Counter-evidence against the Input Hypothesis (Swain on immersion) 4:02 Roles of output in L2 grammar acquisition (Swain 1995) 12:43 Role of output in noticing 13:34 Role output in hypothesis testing 15:59 Role of output in metalinguistic reflection 17:39 The Output Hypothesis by Swain 21:25 Pushed output 23:17 Modified output 26:19 Evidence for the Output Hypothesis 30:58 Differential effects on vocabulary, word order, and morphemes 32:53
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lsk8PQThws
-------------
Explicit vs implicit knowledge in SLA (Second Language Acquisition)

Words "explicit" vs. "implicit" 0:23 Explicit vs. implicit knowledge 1:00 Explicit knowledge is declarative 1:31 Implicit knowledge is procedural 2:32 L1 knowledge is implicit 5:07 Implicit L1 knowledge 6:40 What is explicit language knowledge? 8:57 Implicit language knowledge is primary 11:05 Automaticity 12:02 Roles that the two kinds of knowledge play 14:10 Monitor 14:10 Usefulness of explicit and implicit knowledge 16:00 Characteristics of explicit and implicit language knowledge 17:40 Implicit L2 knowledge 21:03 Interface positions 21:56 The no interface position 22:41 Monitor 23:28 Learning vs. acquisition by Krashen 24:55 The strong interface position 25:16 The weak interface position 28:38 Educational implications 29:40



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zum_Y7Lxu94

[Cainntear]

The normal brain masters these declension endings perfectly:
- s
- es
- 's
- s'

The food for the "Krashen brain":

I’ve met a lot of normal human brains who struggle with those in English as a second language.

My observation has been that this is a problem of pronunciation that no amount of listening will ever shift — only deliberate output practice.

[Kraut]

Back to this idea of picking up the grammar through translation, I am reminded of a Korean textbook I heard about from a Canadian vlogger living in Korea going by the name expatkerri. What was unique about it was that much of the text in the book was written in English, but using Korean word order. This reportedly helped her to get a feel for Korean word order before actually mastering the Korean vocabulary. So for example, there was one dialogue that went something like this:

Person A: Taste have, huh?
Person B: Yes! Very taste have. But Kimchi why not eat?
Person A: Kimchi taste not have. Too spicy. Too spicy, huh?
Person B: No, that spicy not. I this Kimchi really like. But a little salty.
Person A: Ahyew! Too full.

Do you happen to remember the name of this book? I'd be very interested in flipping through it, even with no desire to learn Korean at the moment. Just to see how it works pedagogically.

The Translation Cubed method comes close to what you are suggesting. The author has announced that he might come out with an app: splitting up a text, interlinearly arranged, for translations, literal and idiomatic, pronunciation ..

The idea is not new, the Toussaint-Langenscheidt course for self learners (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methode_T ... genscheidt) did something similar and was quite successful.

TranslationCubed — An innovative method for FAST language learning and THINKING in foreign languages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXtDpbfNehg
------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxFtPzolKlc

[Iversen]

Person A: Taste have, huh?
Person B: Yes! Very taste have. But Kimchi why not eat?
Person A: Kimchi taste not have. Too spicy. Too spicy, huh?
Person B: No, that spicy not. I this Kimchi really like. But a little salty.
Person A: Ahyew! Too full.

Putting the words to be translated in the same order as in Korean is one step towards the hyperliteral translations I have discussed several several times, though only massacred on one parameter.

And yes, Kimshi too spicy is..

[sfuqua]

I went through a phase where I took any sentences I was trying to learn and made them into a word list, translated them one at a time with google translate and yandex, and then put them back into original order to make a word for word translation.
It was useful.

[TopDog_IK]

Despite all of the alleged Krashen and Kaufmann hate around here, this thread is slowly convincing me that the two Steves are right about vocabulary flashcards and SRS decks being unnecessary. Kaufmann makes the obvious point: frequency vocab decks are pointless because, by definition, you will see those words frequently in your immersion, so why bother?

[ryanheise]

Person A: Taste have, huh?
Person B: Yes! Very taste have. But Kimchi why not eat?
Person A: Kimchi taste not have. Too spicy. Too spicy, huh?
Person B: No, that spicy not. I this Kimchi really like. But a little salty.
Person A: Ahyew! Too full.

And yes, Kimshi too spicy is..

By the way, there is no copula after spicy. That's actually a timely example of how we can easily mis-identify patterns. And we should intervene quickly to prevent fossilisation Of course with your own healthy attention to grammar, I don't think you would have let that misunderstanding go on for too long had you been seriously studying Korean, and perhaps to some extent regardless of the form of that attention.

If schools ever did start teaching classes designed to cultivate pattern recognition skills before embarking on language learning, what should such a class look like?

I went online yesterday looking for online pattern recognition tests and found one that turned out to be an IQ test that was largely based on pattern recognition. I found the test easy since I have a lot of practice at puzzle solving, but it was interesting to reflect on what thought process I was using to identify the patterns, and it basically came down how many different dimensions I was trying to observe patterns on. E.g.

Are there any patterns in the colours?
are there any patterns in the shapes?
Are there any patterns in the regularity?
Are there any patterns in the algebra?
Are there any patterns in the concepts?
etc. etc. etc.

When it comes to languages, I feel that such a class to develop pattern recognition skills might want to at least raise awareness of dimensions such as:

Are there any patterns in the pitch?
Are there any patterns in the word order?
Are there any patterns in the prefixes, suffixes or infixes?
Are there any patterns in the gender?
etc. etc. etc.

It was suggested that some of these hyper-polyglots may be good at picking up grammar simply because they have a lot of experience with different languages, so they are aware of the different types of things they should be looking out for (i.e. the "dimensions") when approaching a new language. I don't think it would hurt if language learners were educated on the types of things to look out for before they started to learn a language.

A book that I really enjoyed growing up was Lateral Thinking by Edward De Bono (1970). It is a practical book on the pattern making nature of the brain, how that pattern making can go wrong, and techniques we can use to break old patterns and create new ones, to solve problems and to think creatively.

Do you happen to remember the name of this book? I'd be very interested in flipping through it, even with no desire to learn Korean at the moment. Just to see how it works pedagogically.

The book is called Survival Korean. I don't have a copy either, but from what I understand, the book had 3 versions of every dialogue. 1) Korean, 2) Direct English translation with Korean word order, 3) A translation into more natural English.

[Cainntear]

Despite all of the alleged Krashen and Kaufmann hate around here,

What’s with the word “despite” there? You’re not saying that Krashen and Kaufmann are right about everything, and we’re not saying they’re right about nothing.

The biggest thing here is about whether they’re to in their totality.

this thread is slowly convincing me that the two Steves are right about vocabulary flashcards and SRS decks being unnecessary. Kaufmann makes the obvious point: frequency vocab decks are pointless because, by definition, you will see those words frequently in your immersion, so why bother?

Well that’s one specific case which doesn’t disprove the general case, and I know I’ve seen people here comment that they only use dedicated vocabulary techniques for lower frequency vocabulary because of this. Certainly when I was following formal language courses, I used the techniques to learn some of the course specific vocabulary.

[rdearman]

Despite all of the alleged Krashen and Kaufmann hate around here, this thread is slowly convincing me that the two Steves are right about vocabulary flashcards and SRS decks being unnecessary. Kaufmann makes the obvious point: frequency vocab decks are pointless because, by definition, you will see those words frequently in your immersion, so why bother?

You should look into a mental fallacy known as confirmation bias.

[Le Baron]

Despite all of the alleged Krashen and Kaufmann hate around here, this thread is slowly convincing me that the two Steves are right about vocabulary flashcards and SRS decks being unnecessary. Kaufmann makes the obvious point: frequency vocab decks are pointless because, by definition, you will see those words frequently in your immersion, so why bother?

There isn't 'Krashen and Kaufmann hate'. I like Krashen's works, but his thesis is not infallible. He did, for example, say in a YouTube interview during the pandemic that reading alone 'develops pronunciation'. This is clearly bollocks. How long have you actually been aware of either one of these men? More than five minutes? Longer? Kaufmann alone has changed his mind several times and learned his core languages in a way utterly at odds with his currently promoted method. Immersion and input isn't a brand new idea, it runs through the history of language learning; mostly unformulated. How many languages have you gained functionality in? You may find that different languages pose different problems. If you think you're going to learn e.g. Russian as an adult L2 learner without checking out any of its complicated grammar directly, you'll be in for a very rude awakening.

There are dozens of people who say SRS flashcards are a waste of time and provide an argument as to why. Then there are people who have clearly benefited from using SRS for vocabulary development, which ought to be impossible if the SRS debunkers are correct. This isn't science and it isn't mathematics and quite a lot of people need to get this into their heads. They won't solve any 'language learning problems' like that. It fails because the variables are indeed very variable and people learn in idiosyncratic ways. Most of the available methods are tools you can use to a greater or lesser extent according to needs and how you learn.

I find something of the radicalised convert in your view here. That you started German in an overly-scholastic way by looking at grammar books and failed, then started pursuing input and made comparatively better progress. The conclusion then drawn seems to be that this is the only way. There are others here who talk about having heavily pursued only input and as a result ended up with flaky oral grammar handicapping them in actual speech. It isn't a magic bullet.